Why Leftoids Are Like Women

Leftoid Prime Jonathan Chait is feeling kind of nervous about the intensity and target acquisition algorithm of the witch hunts that his Social Justice Wanker allies have been up to these last few centuriesdecades years. Ross Douthat responded in a gentlemanly manner (and that is why he will always fail), and Steverino Sailerino detailed the intramural derailment on his blog.

The liberal elite are beginning the phase of cultural decline where they eat each other after having achieved total victory over their enemies (i.e., normal people). It would all be a humorous sideshow if the stakes weren’t so high and marginal realtalkers weren’t losing their livelihoods to mobs of screeching idiots.

Maxim #105: Women, and leftoids, are unhappy when they have no dominant power to whom they can submit.

Leftoids, and women, ARE the dominant power in late stage Western societies. And this makes them very unhappy. That’s because the nature of leftoids, and women, is submission. The joyous capitulation to a dominant man, or a dominant paternal culture, has the paradoxical effect of relieving women and leftoids of that gnawing feeling of unfulfilled yearning to give themselves over to a truly powerful force of nature.

When there are no dominant men, or no dominant culture, to rein in their worst excesses of mind and habit, women and leftoids become unhappy and agitated, like untethered electrons spinning out of valence, naked nuclei violently colliding. This explains why, even in the moment of their absolute victory, leftoids and women wail and ragepout like toddlers throwing temper tantrums. They really never wanted to win. They just wanted to stamp their wee feet as dad sternly admonished and sent them to their rooms.

Now that they’ve won, they cast around for sturdy support, only to find themselves and their despicable loser cohorts flinging feces at each other. Desperate for a father figure to at once obey and resent, they summon the frat boy or redneck southroner golems, but that horse left the barn a long time ago, replaced by fat pigs and sneaky rats.

Leftoids, like women, will stress-test their objects of dominance. They need to know if the dominant society/men they love are as they seem.

Leftoids, like women, will quickly lose respect for their society/lovers if the former are allowed to get away with murder by the latter.

Leftoids, like women, say one thing and desire another.

Leftoids, like women, will get very angry and spiteful if they are given what they claim to want.

Leftoids, like women, will make life miserable for the society/men who supplicate to them.

Leftoids, like women, are contemptuous of a weak society/weak man.

Leftoids, like women, will work ceaselessly to sabotage society/relationships, and will blame anyone but themselves for their treachery.

Leftoids, like women, are incapable of wisely and judiciously exercising power. A few leftoids and women are comfortable wielding real power for the good of their fellowmen and posterity, but most are clumsy tyrants who secretly hate having the role thrust on them. They grow angrier, more spiteful, and more vindictive with each day they are tasked to possess the monarch’s mace.

This is the nub of it: Leftoids are like women because both crave the calming embrace of a strong, dominant, unshakeable lover.

An alpha society as an alpha male.

But we are no longer an alpha society. We are a beta society into which women and leftoids have filled the alpha male vacuum. And they hate the world for it.

Equalism, multikultism, and anti-white prostration have robbed leftoids of happiness just as assuredly as feminism has robbed women of happiness. But they will never realize or accept this. It therefore falls to men, unapologetic men and their patriarchal goodness, to set them right. What leftoids need is what women have always needed:

A strong pimp hand.

***

Addendum: Douthat asks a rhetorical question in his ChaitFact column:

Is the vocabulary that the contemporary left increasingly uses for this purpose, to condemn arguments instead of answering them — don’t victimblame, don’t slutshame, check your privilege, that’s phobic (whether trans or homo or Islamo or otherwise), that’s denialism — worth embracing and defending?

I have a simple reply to leftoids pulling this indignant condemnation stunt:

“Answer the question.”

Conservatives should try it sometime. If they do, they might find they enjoy the feeling of their testicles dropping.

This was funny, I completely agree masculinity has been vanquished. Men these days seem to all be wearing skinny jeans, with thick black rimmed glasses, and they are all sentimental and in awe of women. My own theory for why the left fight each other was because lefty types are just in it for fashion. It would be kind of like if everyone got those hoop earrings, they wouldn’t be edgy anymore so then people would turn to infighting to reassert their fashionable-ness. Also, I have no respect for Douthat. His style is so bombastic, weaving back and forth to cover his tracks so no one can accuse him of any of the endless -isms out there, by the end of his long, winding essays there is barely a point left to take away.

Now that they’ve won, they cast around for sturdy support, only to find themselves and their despicable loser cohorts flinging feces at each other.

They’ve won fuckall. Temporary ascendancy isn’t victory. In a decade we will look back on these kind of posts and wonder where all the defeatist gloom came from.

The enemy isn’t strong, it is deceptive. The only way it can triumph is by causing the strong to despair and convincing them to turn the sword on themselves — or, worse, to rot away on the (pool)sidelines.

The cracks are already showing in their massive Potemkin village. One can only battle the truth for so long before exhausting himself. Maintaining lies kills the soul, saps the spirit. Women are men and men are women! Race is a social construct! Whites are the root of all evil! He took a knife to his genitals, now we all have to call him her, bigot!

Their lies have gone from plausible (out of our generosity, decency, and patience) to risible. They can only intimidate as long as no one laughs in their face. They have nothing supporting their lies, not even police power. The enemy is composed of such anti-men that any use of force must be done by others on their behalf, and those are the very people — regular joes just trying to earn an honest wage — who will stage the palace coup when the choice becomes clear. What man who knows how to fight will kill or die to uphold a suicidal tranny’s view of reality, which is the vision the left has proudly reduced itself to?

The insufferable multikulti super bowl commercials and the American Sniper phenomenon cannot co-exist in the same nation for long. Guess which culture has the balls to fight? Guess which cohort’s “toes curl” at the very thought of conflict?

“When things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.”

… which is proof that the culture is mercurial. There is no reason to fixate on present woes to the point of despair when other times had it far worse and since future times are our responsibility. A little perspective.

Sometimes I’m convinced that all we need is a strong curriculum in history, and all this ignorant noise will fade into the graves of the transient generations, the ugliest of which immediately preceded ours.

Or who’s had his possessions and money stolen by a anti-male divorce-scam-court

Or who’s had his liberty taken by a female-pedestalising criminal court system.

Don’t get me wrong Mat – I’m with you all the way – but as the vast majority of these men have sleep-walked into these situations, don’t you think a larger bell is needed to wake Men up to what is happening, before it happens to them.

Say what you like about CH’s methods, for me – the bell he rings, rings loud and true.

Politically, YKW have completely lost the White race. McCain won college-edumakated Whites by 1% in 2008, and Romney widened that to an 18% landslide in 2008. Then YKW were completely shellacked in the 2014 midterms [with the exception of Jeanne Shaheen -vs- Scott Brown in New Assachusettsshire]. YKW’s only hope now is the 1965 Immigration Act and illegal aliens and their policy of importing a new populace. Also good news in that Whites in the UK and France are waking up from their slumber with e.g. the BNP and Front National.

PA: “I see a lot of faith in the conservative establishment…” The GOP Elite are all toryite Mercantilist-Fascist Kleptocrats now. Our big problem is the amount of money which YKW have been printing and handing to themselves and to the Top-1% Goys ever since September 2008 when Goldman-Sachs-Paulson went to Dubya-43 and demanded TARP. Those fiat shekels make their way to e.g. the Koch brothers, and if the Koches won’t support you, then you’re SOL – you gotta go begging to the Las Vegas branch office of Meyer Lansky Inc. The big news this morning is that the Koches were offended when Rand Paul wore cowboy boots to their recent shindig, and we know that Meyer Lansky Inc hates Rand. Ergo no fiat shekels for Rand.

Matt King: “Sometimes I’m convinced that all we need is a strong curriculum in history…” Except that YKW are literally writing the history books. There is some YKW professor who has written a substantial portion of all the secondary school history books in this country – Rush Limbaugh has been all over this.

tl;dr: Mexicans in the U.S. are now below replacement. Puerto Ricans and Cubans are both breeding less than non-Hispanic whites. Central Americans are a desperate “last hurrah” for the race-replacers, at least for a while. And if you dig a little deeper, you’d find that non-Hispanic blacks are also breeding less than non-Hispanic whites, and are only kept slightly higher by foreign-born blacks (i.e., imported “refugees” from Africa).

in my hometown, there is a cop that has been put on leave (and will likely get fired). WHat did he do?

He tweeted “death threats” to protesters against police brutality. All he said was “If you threaten mine or my families life, i will use my law appointed right to kill you”. He also tweeted something else, which basically said he would “be at the movies tonight with his gun, off-duty”. Which i didnt fully understand.

Now, this was most definitely UNWISE. But the guy (a white guy) is most definitely not being racist. The hysteria of lefties and their eagle eye, bloodhound sniffing out of anything PLAUSIBLY racist is so far out of hand its exactly like the witchhunts of puritan times. The reason for this guy losing his job, his coaching job at a school, and the department eating shit and disassociating themselves from the guys statements, is all because of a simple formula.

I dont even like cops, but this one is pretty much textbook CH derision fodder. Definitely foolish on his part to have posted on twitter, but even the fact that our culture has social media that can ruin your life should be a pretty stern warning to all of us. This society is crashing and burning.

Many of the private security companies have this scanning software now so that if, for example, you tweet or facebook some untoward picture or plan to do something at a concert or sports venue (even as harmless as planning a streak if you get enough “likes”), they can catch it within minutes and pinpoint your seat.

PA: “What do we see when we look BACK a decade and read our posts?
I see a lot of faith in the conservative establishment and a lot of sporting niceness to superficially friendly but passive-aggressive blacks.”

A great point, PA. We are evolving, and mostly in the right direction. There are now a lot more people who “get” the full package than there were not so many years ago. Each day, more and more people are grasping that we are faced with an existential crisis – that literally everything of value is on the line, down to our very existence as a people. It’s simply no longer about conservative mumbling and grumbling over relative trivialities. It’s not just about symptoms, but causes. As the Titanic goes down, there is no need to quibble over the deck chairs.

I like the moral and intellectual confidence that I’m seeing more and more on our side. Gone are the days of “I’m not a racist, but…” and “I know it sounds bad to say this, but…” Fuck the pathetic, pusillanimous conservatism of our fathers. Half of them were liberals but simply too stupid to realize it. The other half put money in front of what is right, and were it not for us, future generations would end up with neither. Hell, were it not for us, there won’t even be any future generations.

The “conservatism” of those buffoons has led us nowhere but disaster, blind alley after blind alley, dead end after dead end. But hey, I guess every people has to suffer the consequences of a disgraceful generation every now and again. In contrast, we don’t shy away from the truth, nor apologize for it. We revel in it – and in a society that is based on lies, that’s no small thing.

What has to emerge, and indeed is emerging, is aggressive and no holds barred. Fun, smart, purposeful and uncompromising. Our opponents have no intention of compromising with us – they want us broken and subjugated, and then gone entirely. Any “compromise” is merely a ruse, a temporary (and brief) halt on the road to oblivion. They dream and gloat of our “inevitable brown future.” No compromise is possible with such types and, even if it were, should not be desired. If we really believe our own b.s., and we do, then there can be no other way.

It won’t be easy, or pretty, but we will win. And by winning, I mean a land of our own.

When the regime falls, it will be quick like the Berlin Wall. People will stop policing themselves for correctness when they see it is safe to be unguarded.

Until then, keep the faith so that when the smoke clears others will turn to you for guidance. They will say, “He’s the one who’s been telling the truth all along, even when it was dangerous.”

And most of all, guard against factionalism. Whites tend to subdivide against themselves over distinguishing categories which are irrelevant to the present purpose. We are nitpicky about who’s in the Big Tent and kick out our best allies over “the vanity of small differences.” That’s the fate of the “manosphere”: every halfwit blogger wants to be king of his own little, self-delineating faction. A thousand sovereigns with three followers each.

“I get the sense that the argument for transit nowadays is almost aesthetic — people find cars and roads and suburbs aesthetically distasteful, and want to replace them. That would explain the focus on insanely expensive light rail systems, that look cool, over buses that actually move people for a reasonable cost. I saw a great quote the other day, I wish I can remember who said it. Something like, ‘Progressives aren’t trying to create a rational world, they are trying to create Portland.'”

Back in my NRO reading days Jonah Goldberg said a funny. He was repersenting some conventional GOP point of view in a running debate with Jonathan Chait and when it was his turn, he wrote a post with a long list of strong arguments. Toward the end, when you thought he’s done, he goes “But Chait, there’s more!”

“Answer the question” is my favorite argument tactic against SJWs. They try desperately to switch topics, to derail the process, to stop you from pinning them down. Never let them do it. Corner them & force them to either admit error or make fools of themselves.

Either way, it drives a red-hot knitting needle into their collective amygdala. In fact, they almost never admit error, so you can count on a rage pout from your target. Hold your unshakeable frame, laugh derisively at your pitiful & impotent SJW opponents, and watch them collapse into puddles of sputtering fury.

Instant embarrassment. They hate that. Do it enough and you’ll drive them from the public square.

Being able to remember the topic and not allow it to be derailed, even when you are tempted to answer the new thing an opponent brings up, is valuable. Leave that new statement from your opponents for later. They are baiting you because they have no answer to the original question. They are baiting you with something that is harder to prove or disprove in just a brief answer.

“Massacres are proof of conservative White gun culture!”

“But most massacres in the news are carried out by leftists and non-Whites. The Virginia Tech massacre was by a Korean who wrote hate mail to Bush. The Columbine massacre was by a half-Jew and his friend, who had made an anti-racist website online. Their parents were registered Democrats. The Batman theater massacre was by a man who volunteered for the Obama campaign, who had taken part in the Occupy demonstrations and was a member of the leftist-extremist Black Bloc. That cop who killed other cops and a daughter of a cop in California, Christopher Dorner, was a Black man who wrote a letter praising Obama and attacking the NRA. Rodger Elliot was a half-Asian from a Hollywood family. And so on. Are they part of White gun culture?”

“…….But people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Then there’d be no crime.”

“Answer the question. You said the massacres were caused by conservative White gun culture. These were not conservative Whites. And most gun crime is committed by 1.7 million gang members, who are mostly Blacks and Latinos. Do you admit you were wrong?”

“If there were no guns, no massacres!”

“That’s another topic. You said massacres were caused by White conservatives. I just showed you that they are not. Do you admit you were wrong?”

An example of sticking to the smaller topic that you can easily disprove, rather than allowing yourself to be dragged into the wider topic.

Women are also like socialists in that they more than men choose what is safe and gives money here and now. In European referendums women always vote more than men for the safer alternative. Government-run pension system or whatever. In EU referendums women in southern and Eastern Europe were always more eager to join the EU than men (who still were very eager to join). Because the debate was dominated entirely by the money rain they would extract from the Germanics. In Germanic countries women were less interested than men in joining the EU, because it was safer to stick with the wealth they had than to go with a risky experiment, despite all the high-sounding talk about historical inevitability.

In presidential elections in the U.S. conservatives would always win if only men voted.

For nationalists you have to think of this when talking to women. They know that it is safer to keep quiet and follow those in power, and that resisting means you will be attacked physically and by a media that covers up the attacks. To the extent that nationalists can appeal to women (or to fearful men) you need to talk of the shorter horizon, not the wider one. How taxes are rising, welfare payments are increasing, how Turks and Yugoslavs and the rest attack people in the streets and in school. All this is true. But even if immigrants produced enough to compensate for their consumption, even if they didn’t commit any crime, the most important long-term issue is the loss of White genes. Whites have the most IQ outliers of any group, and men have more IQ outliers than women. This means that the small group of people who discover and invent, and drag the rest of the world along with them, will always be White men. But this is too abstract, too far away for most people, and especially for women. They don’t care about what will not be invented in the future. They don’t care if mankind is extinguished thousands of years from now by some event we can’t imagine today but could prevent with better technology. They care about the people they see around them.

…and about crying children they see on TV, staring at the camera in close-ups, because their brains react to these children as if they were family. Because never before in tens of thousands of years have we stared crying children in the eyes unless they were right in front of us, our own kin.

Arbiter: “For nationalists you have to think of this when talking to women. They know that it is safer to keep quiet and follow those in power, and that resisting means you will be attacked physically and by a media that covers up the attacks.”

Good post, Arbiter. Clearly, there are some remarkable women that possess real vision and passion – but these are mostly male things. The “normal” women will follow us only when we exude strength and purpose, and not before. On the other hand, much of what men do, including revolutionary men, is done to impress women, so having female supporters is important. Obviously, this creates a dilemma, which is why we don’t have revolutions every day. It’s a tricky dynamic to set in motion. Men start revolutions, but they typically fight for other people – and those other people are slow to support radical change.

As things stand now, nationalists/identitarians are a marginalized and weak group. They possess neither the carrot nor the stick. Literally the entire system is against us – it’s anti-white to the core. The female mindset (and that of many/most men as well) is: “You don’t have power, but the system does. When you talk about challenging the existing order, then you are just trying to get me in trouble. So stop it (or insert silly platitude or canard so I can justify dismissing you).”

[As an aside, I’ll mention that women almost always come around to the political views of any alpha/greater beta that they are involved with. But that’s only because he has “power” in her world.]

For most people, it’s not even about who is right or who is wrong. It’s just that you can’t punish them or give them treats, yet the system can do both of these things.

I suspect it goes back to our hunter gatherer days, when some young guy started talking against the clan chief. That’s dangerous stuff – the sort of thing that makes people uncomfortable. It’s just the hard wiring, stronger in women, but applicable to most men as well.

But there is indeed something in humans that allows an illegitimate system to be overturned (as countless systems have been over history), it’s just that the people who will do it are, inevitably, mostly men. Disproportionately young men with little to lose – and the current system is creating plenty of them. It’s this idealistic, and often angry, minority of men that must be appealed to. Everyone else is just along for the ride, intellectual and moral ballast. Or party favors to keep the revolutionaries going.

Probably the best thing that can be done with women today is to shame and discourage miscegenation. The goal is not to make the girl a revolutionary, no need to bother her pretty little head with all of that – it’s just not in her nature. What’s more important is to make sure that there are actually some white people left when the time comes. She is key to that, and so long as she breeds true, little else matters. The anti-white system clearly understands this, and is therefore massively pushing miscegenation.

The extreme left (Anti-facist gropus) here in Germany doesn’t even bother to hide their intention. Two of their glorious slogans for example: “Never again Germany” “Pushing for the death of the nation” Most of them are University students and other pampered fucktards!

“The extreme left (Anti-facist gropus) here in Germany doesn’t even bother to hide their intention. Two of their glorious slogans for example: “Never again Germany” “Pushing for the death of the nation” Most of them are University students and other pampered fucktards!”

I hated these roaches way before I became truly un-PC. Taking a leak in a university is a flabbergasting experience but not because of the sanitation but because of the drivel written and plastered over the walls.

That’s a good point. In addition, the recent studies have shown that liberal women prefer strong, dominant conservative men. Rich women prefer the same; they just can’t find anyone who outearns them. The abundance of women in university and relatively high-paying desk jobs and AA promotion booty (new pay gap is in favor of women) make higher-status males on average rarer and rarer. Yet these women vote liberal while preferring conservative.

What this means is women are voting to destroy what they prefer and enjoy. How can this not end catastrophically?

If you want to appeal to women, appeal to the threat of them being raped. Use the feminist foaming at the mouth about rape culture to frame the debate in the heads of women in those terms about immigration.

Use her image as your banner and say that a vote for the left is a vote for that. The people are stupid sheep so heh. All you need is to bribe some journalists.

What’s interesting about my country is that men and women vote almost identically. Mostly because people mated assortatively when it came to politics(because if you were a political dissident, you wouldn’t want wifey to be a state informer and vice versa).

I used to think white knights were the worst but lately it has been the offline concern trolls who always want to give me life advice that I never ask for. I just brush them of with a sarcastic “Thank you for your deep concern.”

They are a dominant voice in Israel, which has a Lobby that controls U.S. Middle Eastern policy. Using the U.S. to prop up pro-Israeli tyrants across the Middle East and target the few countries that dare oppose the taking of the last 22 percent of Palestinian land. As many in Washington have said, typically in retirement, if you go against the Lobby your career will be ruined. Because of their constant support by their brethren who dominate the boardrooms in all the large media corporations. It took a while, but while Whites sell shares to whoever, the Tribe make sure to sell only to each other, and over the decades it paid off.

If only the Founding Fathers had foreseen how the media would control politics by controlling the information flow. The Constitution was a great experiment, but it assumes a peace-time society, not a society where certain groups seek control over the majority. A society at constant, internal war.

The Constitution is not the problem we do not follow the Constitution if we follow the Constitution blacks amd women would not vote and all problems would be solved. No more welfare state and a return to respect for marriage and family and providing fathers

The “minorities” whose chief aim the original US Constitution was to protect are propertied white men. That’s the laughable thing. Even in a liberal liberal arts political science program, I was taught this fact. Today the libtards have made it “up is down” again, and the sheeple today, of course, think of “minorities” as black people. The Constitution was designed to protect minorities (smart, propertied white men) from “the tyranny of the majority.”

We now have a tyranny of the majority, because of women, Mexican, and black voting power.

Most of your far left types are expressing some daddy/parent issues in political terms. The existing traditional culture and status quo ante represent something dear to the parent figure and so they aim to destroy it – and do so in the manner of children, which is to say with outsized demands. Leftism is a symbolic cultural and intellectual patricide.

This is most obviously and readily seen in, of course, your feminist class in the Left. Try “Feminist Mad Libs” some time by cutting and pasting some screed by any of the notorious online feminists (Amynda Marcunt, for example) into a word processing document and do a find and replace where you swap in “Dad” for “GOP” etc. and “go to the mall” for “abortion/birth control/free stuff.” The amended piece will retain its prior level of coherence.

Not just men. Western men, white men, Christian men. The desire for liberty is not universal.

“Of a truth, few men desire freedom, the greater part are content with a just master.” — Sallust/Mithradates

53% of American voters are women. We are, therefore, doomed.

Women have probably been a majority since the beginning of the race. Men have made history in all places and all times without exception. Get your mind out of vile, shabby democracy. The mob is low and to be despised, a last resort to preserve the res publica, but otherwise to be suspicious and guarded against, as the founders tirelessly warned.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” — Samuel Adams

You who spew crap over Rollo Tomassi, Vox and CH and others for not basing their posts on your Jewish essay collection – I’m sure you’d like to ban any dissent if you only could. Ironically I’m pretty sure all three of those are somewhat religious, but apparently that’s not enough for you.

‘sides, Christianity has never been about freedom. Christians are like communists, always suppressing dissent and intelligent voices who want fact instead of fiction, as soon as they come to power. Like the POS Charlemagne who waged war on German and Polish tribes, killing tens of thousands, because he thought he would buy himself time in Paradise that way. How ironic that Christian fanatics complain about Muslims. Christians invaded Europe AND almost the entire Middle East. “Freedom”.

You make a good point now and then, but afterward you ruin your credibility by returning to your spittle flecked screeds against Christianity and Da Joooooos.

We philo-semitic Christians can get along with non-Christians and non-Jews just swimmingly, and we can team up to kneecap the left. We’re reluctant to pitch in with a guy who can’t restrain his urge to write like a crazy eyed homeless lunatic screaming about alien conspiracies, while one hand surreptitiously rummages in his crotch.

I disagree. Women voters only shape the political landscape in the absence of strong men. Liberals (and Repubs to a slightly lesser extent), tap into the beta bucks drive of a women’s hypergamy to gain votes. The fact of the matter is, most women in a relationship with a strong man will vote the same way he does. When strength returns to men in relationships, and it will happen eventually, the tide will turn.

And while we’re on the subject, Gay men – being one of the groups claiming victimhood – seem to be getting a massive free pass by our homocentric media. Maybe we should start referring to child molesters who prey on boys, as…. “Homo child molesters” or “Homo- paedos”

The only problem with Matthew Weiner’s “Mad Men” is the message he is going to conclude with. The series was so popular at the beginning because there was something both CORRECT and irresistable about the patriarchal 50’s culture it depicted. A culture deeply conservative

Now, Hollywood would not be Hollywood… and a “Weiner” wouldn’t be a “Weiner”… if that original message wasn’t deep-sixed by the finale.

We know what’s coming –

Draper is a womanizing cad because… wait for it … he was abandoned by his mother.

And that patriarchal 50’s society depicted at the beginning of the series? There was something seriously wrong, as well all know now, — *** Thank gawd ***the 60’s happened.

In reality — “Mad Men” is so powerful/popular a cultural item because the 50’s patriarchy world was correct and irresistible.

On some level — Men being Men, and women being the, yes, second-class citizens, to them is correct in Nature.

We all know on some level there is nothing wrong with a Draper being a womanizer. No deep psychological problems. It is simply part and parcel of the alpha male

James Salter: “The great engines of this world do not run on faithfulness.”

Further, every female watching that show, like the 60 million (?) who bought 50 Shades – wish they were on their knees sucking Draper’s dominant, politically incorrect cock.

Even more important is that what created Draper was a conservative 50’s society. Draper could only exist as a product of the 50’s. A world of power in the hands of men, and only a select few men of money, charm, smarts.

You could say the popularity of “Mad Men” is due to vast millions of people wanting to vicariously live in a world that should STILL exist, but does not.
Thanks to a dirty minority

On many a dating profile I see gals all dolled up for a “Mad Men” themed party and even a former co-worker had one of her own. Guess they like to dress up and “need a reason” but given certain work places having such lax dress code, they don’t feel its worth the effort. One Armenian gal always wears dresses and skirts and always outshines every single woman in the company.

My take is that since other girls dress like shit and girls are such of a hivemind, no other girl wants to dress like a lady for fear of standing out from the crowd. Thank God for the Armenian chick. One girl here dresses like a farmer and it’s any wonder she’s still single. (Well, that and her man-jaw don’t help.) On occasion, some gals will wear a dress or skirt aside from their jeans routine and if they’re working it, I’ll comment “nice outfit” or “nice dress.” I did that to one girl and the next day she wore another nice dress. Got busy with work, so didn’t get the chance to say something. I’m all for taking notice when they’re being feminine but turn a blind eye when they dress like guys.

we have a girl like that in our office too. hot little ticket who wears dresses or skirts pretty much every day even though most of the office dresses like slobs. nothing slutty or anything. just nicely put together and feminine. every guy in the office is gunning for her.

and i have noticed some of the other girls dressing a lot nicer since she’s been here. i think it’s because she’s a hard worker and is a really sweet girl so there’s nothing bad the other girls can really say about her. that for sure makes a difference. girls will look for any excuse to pick apart another girl.

but instead of bashing on this girl and saying she’s giving in to the so-called patriarchy and using her feminine “charm” to get ahead, i think they are seeing how much positive attention she gets and they want to get in on the action. cool deal for everyone concerned really. the whole office is looking better…lol.

I was for a minute, then got distracted by the booty on this other chick. I still toy with her from time to time. She’s not that pretty, but her femininity does add a good half-point to a point on her attractiveness. On the plus, she likes giving me shit. I liked it before learning about the crimson arts, now I egg her on even more.

Blart, my wife, who is Japanese, dresses much like your Armenian co-worker. Dresses or skirts every day; tights every day (thin in summer, thick in winter). When we were in the US, she had to contend with other women who disapproved and tried to get her into their sweatpants-and-flip-flops club, and who had no response to her when she pointed out that her low heels couldn’t possibly be more painful that those skin-chafing toe studs that flip flops and sandals have.

Crabs pulling the one outlier from the edge of the bucket.

And the thing is that she isn’t exactly a knockout beauty. But she punches well above her weight in the West thanks to a few inexpensive wardrobe choices that any woman could make.

“now I egg her on even more” – wrong Mendo. SHE is egging you on (all men actually) literally, she is most likely ovulating when she is dressing sexier and exposing more skin. as they all typically do when ovulating.

Also – I can say as a married dude better than half, maybe 75% of girls are well up for sex with a married guy who shows a IDGAF attitude and a strong frame. It’s like instantly attractive to them, like you point out why Mad Men’s philandering was so attractive to the female audience.

I think dressing down is more about laziness more than peer pressure. It’s generally more work and discomfort dressing up. Heels aren’t as comfortable as sneakers, etc. Winter is a tough time to be a girl. I wear skirts all the time and freeze in the winter, even if I’m wearing tights. It’s like having shorts on.

I’m currently staying in a really posh area of Bogotá, Colombia near a mall that’s hopping. Even the slobs try to look put together. For the girls who give a shit it’s skirts and heels every day. It can get cold here and I’ve been really impressed with how they handle it. Instead of normal tights or bare legs (amazing) it’s sweater tights. Which are really fucking hot too.

Hmm, perhaps my phrasing was incorrect, but I get what you’re saying. I have figured out, thanks to this site and others, that when she’s showing more, she needs a good roll in the hay. I just found out that she’ll be leaving our company and she said we’ll keep in touch somehow. I was giving her a hard time about her making coffee this morning.

First, she was going to leave old coffee in the pot and have the new pour in there. Then, she was going to use the decaf pot for regular, saying there wasn’t a clean one, when I pointed one out on the counter. (She didn’t know that the orange-rimmed pot was for decaf.) But, she grabbed the one I told her and started to make a fresh pot. I kept chatting her up when she said I only had a few more mornings to “make my day.” (I had said jokingly that our repartee made my day.)

Any advice you can spare would be helpful.

(Also, our divorced, single mom HR director has been sporting dresses now and then. Today was one of those day. I made it a mission to let her know and she had a glowing smile to thank me.)

People love Mad Men for the 1950s strapping conservatism, as you say. But all the men cheating on their wives, that’s bollocks. And over and over again the 60s spirit is shown to be the cool new thing, a breath of fresh air. And “racism” is of course given the usual treatment. Pete Campbell’s “best feature” is said to be his “modern attitude” toward Blacks.

You see wives gathered in a home talking about the South, saying “segregation is just wrong”, and then in the background the Black maid is opening the door for more guests. Aha! Segregation! The propaganda is dripping constantly. Jewish new employee. Black new employee. Both shown in a positive light. Good to see that stale, hypocritical White atmosphere broken up!

In the end people will feel instinctively drawn to the conservative 1950s atmosphere – while learning that “there was a lot that was wrong about it, and it’s probably good that it disappeared”.

The beautiful White society draws people in. And is then used to propagandize against the preservation of White society. Same tactic as in Sound of Music.

“The beautiful White society draws people in. And is then used to propagandize against the preservation of White society. Same tactic as in Sound of Music.”

Excellent point. It’s somewhat similar to what is done with attractive white performers: present the wholesome image which the healthier portions of the population will naturally resonate with, suck people in, then gradually morph her into a garish whore.

I’ve learned that my staunch refusal to accept horse shit has won me respect from most everyone with whom I debate, but particularly leftists. This, candidly, surprised the shit out of me at first.

Then I realized that with such a paucity of alphas out there to stand up the value of such alphas increases exponentially, even to enemies. They wilt before a withering strength in admiration. Call it Phallus’s Paradox.

same. I get offline messages from people who profess immense respect for my ability to stand absolutely alone on any topic and to defend the point against the entire horde. Most people are simply not brave enough to even speak their mind, much less let it hold an unpopular opinion.

Do people try to goad you into harangues about your beliefs? My friends always try to discuss things with me that might result in me bothering their feelings. It’s particularly funny because:
1)I manage to convince most people at the table except the person arguing with me
2)subsequently get everyone at the table to tell that other person that he’s wrong and try to convince that person of my point without me continuing to exert myself
3)make them join in when I discuss dense people that I ridicule since they can’t think(when people do circular reasoning, create a smokescreen of fallacies etc)

The last time this happened, I had a friend explain to the resident leftist that she’s emoting when it comes to race and not thinking straight and that basically her opinions are ass and he used to be a good tabula rasa believer until 2012 when I talked to him about race. lol

I love to watch this play out in real time. Last week I was chatting to a friend and his lady companion about what a crock of shit the new Ghostbusters movie was going to be, due to its you go girl stunt casting. The girl protested, called me a mysogynist, and I just kept plowing, getting more brazen. By the end of it she wanted to change the topic and was a new resident of tingle town. In other news, there is not a legitimate conservative movement in this country anymore. Dems and reps are all neocons, with different marketing.

What I find amusing about him isn’t that what he says is pure shit because he’s right about a lot of things, it’s that he feels he’s a rebel because he’s a libertarian against feminism, while being totally politically correct over most other issues(certainly PC on race).

All this talk reminds me of Gustave Le Bon’s book “The Crowd”. http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/lebon/Crowds.pdf
It’s a quick read, in which he posits, (among many other things) that the mass character of a crowd is inherently feminine. A domineering and charismatic speaker will always win its heart. Here are some examples.

Freddy Mercury rebounding a chorus line off an audience and finishing with a playful “fuck you” at 1:49 to gale’s of approval.

Bill Clinton defending himself in front of a West Virginia crowd after a woman alleges misconduct of some sort or another. He gives a few boring examples attesting to the contrary, to no special delight of the crowd. At 0:32 he scolds her like an angry father and the reaction sounds like a Beatles concert.

Legendary Bill Burr, Philadelphia stand up, in which he spends almost thirteen minutes berating a crowd that has long since turned on all the previous comedians and the show in general. Thirteen minutes of insulting their mothers, their wives, their city and their personal failings, finally succeeds in regaining their approval.

I watched one beautiful friend in her late 30s fight off attention at every party we attended, only to have each man who sought her number intentionally and epically self-destruct weeks later. “I don’t date,” declared one man I was seeing, irritated at my failure to take this in despite the fact that he had asked me on several dates. It was tempting to accept the line of argument that put the blame on me — obviously, at some level, you are seeking these commitment-phobes out — for then, it would become a problem I could potentially solve. But when another friend, a gorgeous, sardonic wit, was dumped by her yearlong boyfriend, who employed a communication strategy just one shade away from a Post-It, it woke me up. It’s not you. None of us were responsible for the fact that so many men see relationships as a giant albatross.

Even my single male friends, who I knew respected me and other women they were close to, seem to have absorbed cultural tropes about needy, pathetic women and the ever-alluring, ever-evasive single male. In conversations, they conflated masculinity with independence. A male friend of mine recently tilted his head proudly as he explained why he refused to call his longtime partner his girlfriend. “I know all she wants is a relationship; I don’t even have to bring it up,” he declared. I urged him to be more direct with her; he couldn’t know what she wanted unless they talked. “You don’t really mean that,” he replied, rolling his eyes.

I am dancing at the moon, howling with pure glee, at her pain and that of those like her.

It is my alcoholic spirit of choice to know that all the pain she and her friends inflected on Beta men over the years is now being visited back upon them with decades of compound interest.

And we all know, like the crone from IDIOCRACY (www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808), she is never going to use those eggs.

Oh that is too beautiful. I’ll have to read the rest later, but the part you posted is gold. I’ve got two buddies, well, three buddies that all just got married to women after smacking the wall and we’ll see what happens if any of them get preggo. One girl literally took a year “off from work” and maxed out her credit card before meeting my buddy and moving in with him.

My favorite replies to some morphology of “that’s offensive/racist/ableist/classist” are:

-So fucking what
-I guess you’ll just have to be offended
-I’m not racist. I hate everyone! I’m an equal opportunity offender
-as an offense-kin, I find that offensive
-I don’t hate people of other races, I just hate people
-animals are meant to be eaten (sends vegans into a tailspin of rage)
-I’m 1/64th Native American (vague script flipping racism non sequitur play)
-Irrelevant faggots are my trigger. stop triggering me!!!

your knowledge of game is top tier but this is laughable. nothing more beta than the religious right praying to an imaginary leftoid in the sky to take care of them while they save themselves for marriage.

plenty of alphas in the left’s ranks for that very reason. will categorically never vote for a conservative christian.

Back in June 2014 a member of the Russian Duma suggested a law against too-tall high heels, saying that 40 percent of Russian women had feet deformed by bad footwear.

He didn’t expect such a law would pass, but made the suggestion simply to cause headlines so that people would be aware of the problem. Russian women “are young, they simply don’t think about these things”. (That alone would have had him thrown out of Western politics.)

He noted that some of his female colleagues in parliament refused to speak with him because of the suggestion.

If a woman in parliament (any parliament) had suggested a ban on ties, would men have refused to speak to her? Hell no. They would have smiled and chuckled. Or shrugged their shoulders. Alas, feminism and Westernification are more rampant in Russia than people would like to think. Westernification would have been great if Western values hadn’t been corrupted long ago.

She made a book with a fitness plan, and she posted this picture on her Facebook, where it went “viral”. Feminists were FURIOUS. If you go to Google Images and search for “what’s your excuse” you get feminist counter-pictures attacking this. There was a talkshow where Kang was invited, and ugly women in the audience attacked her over and over like the filth they are.

But such pictures are VERY common for men. There are lots of pics saying “No Excuses!” and similar for men, showing someone handicapped who is still buff. In fact, there are such pictures for women too, but they haven’t gotten any publicity and therefore haven’t been attacked like Kang’s picture.

Men don’t mind. Because men are inherently right-wing, and the Right is focused on building. Women are inherently left-wing, therefore focused on organizing in order to gain what they want.

Though I suspect most women actually liked Kang’s picture. I have shown it to girls who liked it. Attractive girls. But they are not the ones who organize to “lead women”. And they don’t work to oppose those either.

Speaking of that: Women are more likely to network through PMs in a forum, and then sharing thread links in order to attack in group. Non-Whites and leftists are also more likely to do this. White men are the ones more likely to just stay independent and comment on the issues alone, treating the issue as what’s most important, not the person behind it.

As Uncle Wolf noted in his bestseller, the Left’s leaders in Germany back then attacked individuals, while the Right focused on the issues. Nothing has changed.

Western values haven’t been corrupted, they just evolved, like all ideas do. Who would have thought that a religion of slaves who turned their slavery into moral superiority by reversing the whole value system and making meekness and weakness good would lead to a shitty civilization that is destroying itself to help anyone that is framed as weak and meek? lol.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
. . .
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
. . .
His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

2. google ‘Sir John Glubb – The Fate of Empires’. free pdf should be available.

3. I’ve been following this guy by the handle ‘Texas Arcane’ for about two years. Basically, his site discusses theories that all thread back to the different races of man and how the remnant of the Neanderthal genetics – of the peoples of Europe – manifest in individuals that are high IQ, aspie, producers. He goes all over the map, but it’s fascinating stuff.
Compendium of short quotes so you get his flavor..It’s pretty fucking funny, too.http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/texas_arcane_kwanstainia_ukandia_kanookistan_and_the_ozealands

There are enthnocentric lefts and anti-white lefts. The Nazis were to a degree sincerely looking out for the average German laborer. The party was designed to head off the appeal of the Jewish dominated Social Democrats and Communists. Adolf did deliver decent results for the lower orders in Germany and up until 1941 German living standards improved.

I’m surprised people are so unaware of Marxist precepts. In a nutshell, Marxism asserts (in the manifesto) that inequality in economic standing is a result of EXPLOITATION. Never by ingenuity. Everyone is the same but the rich victimize the poor and thus, we have classes.

This “thesis” bleeds into everything in a form of Lysenkoism- we’re ALL equal, no matter what. No true leftist will accept any other version of reality and they act in concert to destroy anyone who opposes them.

Oh, and Thomas Jefferson said “all men…”- it’s fuckin bullshit. But if you argue HBD with libertardians or rightists, they throw the Constitution at you. AKA, they TOO are Marxists! Nobody is willing to admit that “Hitler was right.”

Marxism is a pervasive infection.

And by Marxism I mean the manifesto of Karl Mordechai (yes, he was a crypto like Trotsky and Ralph Lauren, Chuck Lorrie, Summer Redstone, Lorne Michaels, and on and on)

yareally et al, any tips for how I could’ve converted this situ to a threesome?

Short version: no IOIs from original target, made out with her friend, target got upset as she liked me after all, drama, drama resolved, slept with friend.

Skip ahead to final paragraph to see what I think I could’ve done to get the 3some. Would also be good to hear your thoughts on whether my beta behaviour in resolving the drama was helpful in getting the final lay, or if I succeeded in spite of it rather than because of it.

FR: met a girl through a group of mutual friends, 7 when made up and dressed to impress, 6 when her guard is down. Liked her, but I’m not good at escalating on girls I meet through social circles, and I never noticed much in the way of IOIs from her, so there was nothing going on there.

She moved back to her country and invited our whole group to come and visit. She invited a cute local friend along who I could see was in to me and on the second night we were making out. Then Girl1 got all upset as apparently she was in to me after all and I didn’t know. So there was about half an hour of girly drama – first Girl1 and CuteFriend had it out, then CuteFriend explains the situation to me, then Girl1 and I talk, then all three of us. In all three conversations I’m involved in, I suggest a threesome, in a way that’s reasonably light-hearted but also in a way that makes clear I think it’s a perfectly reasonably possibility (I think it’s important for the girl(s) to see you believe in what you’re proposing and are not just throwing things out there hoping to get lucky). I say I’m proposing it not just for myself, but because I think it’s the right solution for them, which is kind of true but obviously I’d love a 3some, I’m playing down my desires a bit in order to look cool, which is better than being all urgent about it, but hiding your desires is itself a bit beta.

Some more detail about the 3 convos: first I speak to CuteFriend, she’s pissed off with Girl1 as she’d asked her the night before if she’d be ok with CF and me hooking up, and G1 had said it was fine. CF said even though she was angry and she wanted to fuck me, she couldn’t do so now even if G1 changed her mind, as CF and G1 are BFFs and she’d feel guilty. Fucking women eh?

Then I speak to G1 to try and smooth things over. She’s being melodramatic – crying, talking a lot, basically brain-dumping her emotions and letting her thoughts run off on tangents. I’m sympathetic, but try not to be *overly* sympathetic – the old beta me would’ve got caught up in her emotional tempest. Maybe I’d have comforted G1, backed off, not got laid, rationalised that I was a good guy who cared about women, and everyone would have gone home feeling unsatisfied. As it was, I genuinely didn’t want to come between two good friends, and I didn’t care that much about getting this particular lay (I get laid enough already), but at the same time there was no good reason for CF and me *not* to bang, just some emotional storms that G1 needed guiding through. I’m happy that I remained calm while G1 was getting emotional, I think this helped, but there are probably things I could’ve done better.
Here are some relevant extracts, see if you agree with my analysis:
Me: What a drama, eh? I didn’t realise you liked me. I like you too.
Her: I know.
Me: You realise if you’d been more flirty with me last night, things could’ve been the other way around right now and it could’ve been you and me going home together?
Her: yes
[Pretty beta to just be laying on the table the fact that I like her in a logical, rational way. Don’t care about this since she’s not the target any more, and the validation she got from it may have helped her calm down about me hooking up with CF. Do you guys think so?]
Me: I think you’re both attractive, and both really nice girls, and obviously I don’t want to come between two good friends. Honestly I’d be quite happy to go home with both of you, not for some ego thing or just for myself, but because I think it’s the best solution.
Her: I don’t want to have sex with you just for sex, I feel like I’m getting too old for one-night stands [she’s 25. AF/BB!], but I can’t do long-distance with you because long-distance relationships never work.
[I think she saw me as potential BB, which makes sense as we got on well but I hadn’t gamed her properly]
Me: I find one-night stands fairly unsatisfying, even when I have them I like to have at least some contact with the girl afterwards
Her: I know, because you’re a nice guy and you’re not gonna be some areshole who would sleep with a girl and never call her again
[she makes me sound totally beta here. OTOH, the whole cause of the drama was that she liked me enough to get jealous when I made out with CF. I guess that if I’m “potential BB” or “boyfriend material”, that’s a step up above a pure “orbiter” who exists purely for favours and attention and is sexually repulsive]
Me: Look, I still have one-night stands sometimes, like if there’s some reason we can’t see each other again like the girl’s in another city or whatever, but I prefer to at least have some contact afterwards. If you and I were to have sex, we’d stay in touch and I’m sure there would still be affection between us
[all the stuff I say about ONS is true btw]
Her: I know, that’s what I can’t handle, that affection
[I think she’s saying here she likes me too much for an ONS, which again I think means she sees me as BB]
Her: it’s me, you know? I’m so fucked up. And I love CF and want her to have fun, but I’m just fucking everything up. My love life back in X [my city, where she used to live] was already fucked up, there were these two guys that-
Me: I don’t think I care about these two guys to be honest!
[I struggle to understand why she brought these guys up at all, they were totally irrelevant. Possibly she was projecting her own attraction for pre-selection onto me and wanted to incite jealousy, but this seems unlikely because she didn’t want to hook up with me now that she knew CF was interested. Or she saw me as an orbiter and needed an emotional tampon – but would she be so upset about me hooking up with her friend if I was just an orbiter? I know G1 and CF had just talked about the guys, so I think it was simply that they were on G1’s mind and she was letting her emotions carry her away]
Her: I know you don’t, but I’m going to tell you anyway… blah blah blah
[Lol, when the emotion train gets up steam it’s an unstoppable force! I’d tried to stop her once, so now I just let her emote. Don’t know if it was the best thing to do, but she started to calm down afterwards, and the end result was good. As I get better at this stuff, I can see the comedy value in her thinking the utterly ordinary, forgettable details about her love life are “fucked up”. It was just a couple of guys she was seeing and now she’s not and they’re still emailing her. Significant for her, but not remotely “fucked up” in any way. Starting to see the importance of “You are an oak tree… She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes” (Commandment XV).]

At one point she also said “if you hooked up with any of these other girls [gestures at all the random girls in the club] I wouldn’t care, but it’s because it’s CF I find it difficult”. No idea whether this is true or significant.

At the end I kiss her, because, why not? Then G1 and I go and find CF so we can have a 3-way chat about it. We basically rehash what’s already been said, this just puts everything out in the open and ensures we’re all on the same page. I suggest a 3some again, idea still doesn’t hook. CF says the only solution is to have another drink and go and dance with our friends, and I realise she instinctively understands the maxim “change her mood, not her mind”: at that point there’s nothing more to be said, further logical debate would just lead to dry pussies, blue balls, and unresolved tension between the two girls. That said, it seemed to me that it helped a lot that we had *some* conversation about it, to get G1 comfortable with the situation, reassure her that CF loves her and that I don’t want to hurt her, and give her the validation that I’d have happily gone home with her as well/instead. The convo I had with G1 seemed fairly beta in a lot of ways, but also seemed to be necessary to get the bang with CF. Do you guys agree with that or am I totally off base?

So we have a drink and a dance, G1 and CF are having a girly chat the whole time with lots of hugs. After 15 min CF just turns around and says “do you want to come and sleep with me?”, with G1 saying “I don’t mind, I don’t mind!”. Three cheers for girly BFF love and for alcohol!

Banged CF, spent the next day with both of them along with our other friends, no tension, all good. So in gaming terms I have a #FirstWorldProblem but it’s still good to analyse whether I could’ve turned a good result into a great result.

My analysis: best I could’ve done would have been to try to keep them in the club for longer, gradually escalating the party vibe and the sexual vibe, e.g. start by getting them to kiss in the club. *Highly* unlikely they’d have done this in front of our friends, so I’d have had to remove the judgement factor somehow. Isolating them from our friends would’ve been antisocial, so maybe I’d have had to try and get a “wild party” vibe going and get everyone making out with everyone. Initially there were more guys in our group, but then some people left and the ratio switched to 2m:3f. The other guy was a massive nerd so I’d have had to take care of everything myself, this is way beyond my current skill level but I guess a master of game and social skills might have pulled it off. What do you think, would that have been a good strategy? Do you see other alternatives? Another constraint is that it was getting late and we had to be up the next day for sightseeing and seeing the others, so there wasn’t much time.

Trump card! Go ahead and try to tell me I’m oppressing anyone. As a member of literally every oppressed class possible, it’s deuces wild and I’m the deuce! Since it’s impossible according to the left to be racist if you’re part of the oppressed class, sexist, etc…I can say whatever I want justifiably and no one can try to tell me it’s wrong without me admonishing them to “check their privilege.”

Since all it takes to be a member of these oppressed classes is self identification as one, and they now hold all the power socially, I say we (straight white males who have dicks and don’t feel it should be a vag instead) start doing exactly that and suck every last bit of meaning out of the already meaningless and idiotic categorizations noted above.

Tried something like that a while back. SJW’s face went absolutely stone and she began a huffy little rant about how I was privileged and “essentialist” (had to look that one up) and blahdidy blahdidy blah blah blah. I shut her down by laughing at her and she left the room.

Point is, you’re still trying to think logically like a man. A logical man would recognize the absurdity and inconsistency and laugh along with you. But these are not logical men, they are women (even if they have y chromosomes). For women these words and slogans don’t have meaning as concepts to be understood and thought about. No, they are tribal identity signals, like the squawking of penguins or the hoots of chimpanzees. The content doesn’t matter; simply making the same noise as the rest of the tribe is what’s important.

When we mock their tribal identity signals we are calling the whole basis of their social status into question — like some wise-ass 19th Century American tourist making fun of European nobility. It angers and terrifies them.

I should have clarified. You must act with absolute conviction and belief in the bullshit you’re spewing and NOT say it mockingly. Then, feign tears convincingly and scream “you’re triggering me!” while hiding your face when they try to call you out. It’s all in how you sell it.

cannot watch those two idiots. all 30 something women idolize them, by the way. whatever they say or thing, that’s what that 33 year old HB8 thinks, in case you’re wondering. One thing they complain about tee hee hee is not receiving a manual for how to give a hand job.

“Equalism, multikultism, and anti-white prostration have robbed leftoids of happiness just as assuredly as feminism has robbed women of happiness. But they will never realize or accept this. It therefore falls to men, unapologetic men and their patriarchal goodness, to set them right. What leftoids need is what women have always needed:

A strong pimp hand.”

No. What Western Society and the “World” needs is the MIGHTY HAND OF GOD Mr. CH.

I used to be into all this “Red Pill/Manosphere” stuff back in 2011-2013 but it’s all VANITY in the end.

I have learned a lot of stuff from Chateau Heartiste about the world, women, society and such but now in hindsight I realize I already knew it instinctively if only I kept frequent study in God’s Word: THE KING JAMES VERSION HOLY BIBLE.

I suspect (as you have done in the past) you might “delete my comment”; alright then. No harm here. Just warning you to get on the “Right Track”. (P.S. at least keep my comment for the wise few who want to know about the God Who Loves them…)

Ye need JESUS CHRIST Mr. CH and everyone who follows the “Manosphere” and “Red Pill” and not the LORD JESUS CHRIST!
____________________________________________

If you believe in your HEART the Gospel of Jesus Christ (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) that 1. Jesus Christ died on the Cross, 2. Was Buried and 3. Rose Back to Life (on the third day) and you BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ to be FORGIVEN of your SINS you are SAVED and inherit eternal life in Heaven when you die.

If you die in your sins YOU WILL END UP IN HELL. The REAL HELL OF THE BIBLE. This is NO “joke”.
____________________________________________
I see a goodness in you from following (i.e. occasionally “lurking”) on your website.

You mean well, and you do provide great and useful information; I am not criticizing you or anything. I am only saying in the end your “Mission” of what intend to accomplish in your life will not flourish without the BACKING OF GOD.

You need to be in GOD’S WILL brother in how you live and what you do.

Pray to GOD and ASK HIM what HE WANTS YOU TO DO. That’s the only way you or anyone’s “earthly labours” will mean something when we all die/or in this Time, are called up in the Rapture upon Christ’s imminent Return…
______________________________________________

Still, I look around your sight with the “blasphemous” page title “The Sixteen Commandments of P**n” and I clearly see the spiritual immaturity of the Manosphere in general.

Y’all still worship the “P-Idol” and don’t see it. Smh. Should have titled it the “The Sixteen Commandments of Men” to be taken seriously.

For those who know and follow GOD’S COMMANDMENTS we no premarital sex is the SIN of FORNICATION. There are NO exceptions: anyone who is unmmarried is NOT supposed to have sex! Period!

If you want “sex” you get MARRIED!

Yes, there’s problems in what gets called “marriage” nowadays” but the PAIN’S on all sides because we have crossed God we can’t expect nothing easy. We must faithfully endure our scars in life…

Also, sexual ADULTERY is a SIN and God HATES that too. So all you “puas” “gamers” or what-have-you “players” want to call yourselves (i.e. “FORNICATORS/WHOREMONGERS”): you are NO DIFFERENT than the “sl–s” y’all brag about “doing”. Smh

Yes, DIVORCE is also an ABOMINABLE SIN GOD HATES! People are to STAY MARRIED FOR LIFE TOGETHER for those who faithfully follow God’s Commandments.

God is punishing us for OUR WICKED WAYS!
_________________________________________________

Well, I suppose that’s enough…

CH and those reading… I have God’s Love for you and pray the Lord’s Blessings in your life.

I am not a part of this “manosphere” but thank God I am a part of His Godosphere!

I may stop by from time-to-time to see where the Devil’s leading you down the wrong paths…

Stay safe everyone. These truly are the Last Days. Expect some cruel, DESERVED Punishment from the Wrath of an Angry God for this world’s wicked, rebellious ways… UNLESS we REPENT To GOD in PRAYER, FASTING, SACKCLOTH and ASHES.

There is HOPE WITH GOD, and it all starts with the individual and builds collectively. smh…

I see a lot of faith in the conservative establishment and a lot of sporting niceness to superficially friendly but passive-aggressive blacks.

PA, exactly. I see no progress at all, and lots of retreats, in the all those years, almost a decade by now, since I first came into contact with HBD.

The Anglosphere is not only too wealthy, but became even more dominant after 5 years of crisis. Not only economically, but mostly in culture and military.

The Anglosphere just humiliated Russia, and sent her mercena.ries to shell Russian civilians a few miles from the Russian border. Until the Anglo economies become dysfunctional, the liberal order will not retreat

I was actually saying that I think there’s been progress over the past decade, even if you just judge by the evolution of original material +comments here and related blogs. MRAs have quietly dropped anti-racism.

Outside of this sphere, The Narrative has been getting slowly discredited. The Left has certainly gotten more obnoxious, but they are not Lenin; they are not killing people. They’re just staging dramas and promoting trannies. The fake Right is not inspiring patriotards either. Nobody is rallying for a war with Russia. The Syria non-war may have been the turning point.

O and W before him have done a lot to discredit their respective parties. I’m looking forward to the Hillary administration forore discrediting.

For Nungesser’s mother, Karin, the situation is laden with additional irony as a self-described committed feminist. Paul Nungesser’s comment to The New York Times, “My mother raised me to be a feminist,” caused predictable controversy; but his mother, at least, agrees. She points out that she and her husband took an equal role in parenting and that gender issues, which were part of her journalistic work, were often discussed in their home when her son was growing up: “I think we did not just tell him that men and women are created equal, but we lived it.”

lolzolzozlzolzzo feminism was an attack on women. they should not be on college campuses away from home at age 18-22 having sex outside of marriage with multiple partners.

Well, if the three parent babies have taught us anything, the Left has some extreme impulse to nanny everyone along at any cost. This abomination has nothing to do with science as much as the media makes it seem so. Unfortunately, the British have been taken over by this notion of appearing “modern”, it is an obsession really. On the one hand they tell you everyone is equal, that genes and race don’t matter, and then in the other they set up a market for genes. Well which is it? Maybe I am too western, but I wouldn’t want to be the product of all sorts of DNA spliced to perfection so that I could be nannied along by my overlords to be pleasing to them. Next step is the Left getting involved in all affairs reproductive, it isn’t YOUR family after all, it is society’s now.

The Swedish political party FI – Feministiskt Initiativ (you don’t need a translation of that, right) – didn’t get any seats in parliament in last years elections in Sweden, but they did get some local parish seats. Angelica Kauntz is a local politician for FI and writer for the student organization Lundagård. In her latest piece of Feb 2, 2015, she argues for salary for students (my quick translation of parts of her text, from Swedish):

“We should get paid salary for studying
* * *

We are no super humans who should have to work besides studies. Introduce a salary for studying, writes educational political writer Angelica Kaunts.
* * *

Studying shall and ought to be treated equal to working. Not only in terms of status or social safety systems but also regarding the benefits employees enjoy. Isn’t it reasonable that we should be able to have five weeks paid vacation leave or that we can be on sick leave? I want to see the system for student aid designed so that more people will be able to study and even be able to combine parenthood with full time studying.”

First time poster here. CH, your writing is some of the tightest on the internet and a joy to read.

I am compelled to post because you are almost right about so many things…so close to being right…but when it comes to the big picture, the biggest picture, you are not right. If you are as intellectually honest as I think you are, the fact that the comments section of your website is frequented by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists should tip you off that something is fishy at the Chateau Heartiste.

Let’s start with the issue you address in this post: the similarities between women and leftists. Obviously, you have touched on something important here.

But you need to take things further. One of the barriers preventing Red Pill from going all the way is its insistence on grounding psychology and behavior in evolution and biology. Yes, of course evolution is of tremendous importance. Yes, much of our behavior can be traced back to some genetic predisposition. But not all of it. Ever since humans encountered language, the privileged site of human evolution has shifted from our bodies to our discursive habitat. Like it or not, our alienation in the hivemind is the sine qua non condition of subjectivity. This structural alienation necessarily entails the imperfect overwriting of our biological drives by symbolic drives. Take the example of the shoe fetishist. This sorry specimen doesn’t give a damn about a woman with an hourglass figure. Regardless of what your judgment of the fetishist might be, his existence illustrates the strange way that symbols capture and redirect biological drives away from “natural” goals. In other words, human desire is dialectical, a back and forth between nature and culture that has no equivalent in the animal world. Many of our superficially “non-dialectical” psychological traits can only be understood as “copies” of biological programs. Sublation changes everything. A man who desires a woman with an hourglass figure may superficially resemble a chimpanzee who desires a babe female with the perfect chimp hourglass shape, but the fact that a man’s desire has been filtered through symbols and than translated back into biology essentially transforms it into something unprecedented in nature. Above all, unlike animal desire, human desire is always contaminated, not only with the desires of other humans, but the discursive representations of those desires.

Human desire is a product not of biology but of discourse. I am a psychoanalyst, and as such I have encountered hundreds of psychotic patients in various psychiatric hospitals. As a rule, schizophrenics are people who have not been able to enter the discourse of shared reality. Were human psychology really nothing but an epiphenomenon of brain chemistry, then these people should logically revert to purely evolutionary cues in their behavior when the symbolic cues are unavailable. But this is not the case. Without a shared discourse to overwrite their bodies and provide symbolic objects for their biological drives, their bodies and minds simply cannot function. They don’t want to fuck girls with hourglass figures; they want to stab bus drivers, or inject themselves with heroin, or spend all day every day disassembling and reassembling their computers. This is as close to sexual desire as many of them get. These are people who are closer to their animal nature than we are, not farther from it.

This brings me to my larger point. Those of us who are not psychotic, which is to say those of us who inhabit a shared discourse, are, more or less unconsciously, slaves to this discourse. We do not want to fuck “10’s” because we are evolutionarily programmed to like “10’s”; we want to fuck 10’s because certain shibboleths of tenhood have been elevated to the status of transcendental object of desire by the discourse of mainstream society. What makes a 10 a 10 is her conscious as well as unconscious assumption of the markers of tenhood, within the confines of certain hard biological limits. One man’s 10 is another man’s 6, if not another man’s 1. This fallacious idea that such a thing as an objective 10 exists is nothing but an elevation of one contingent discourse to the status of natural discourse. A grave error, one that is all too easy to make as this dominant discourse both hews to and appropriates biology.

Let me approach this from another angle. Like many of you, I was a “beta male” for years. Then I discovered Game. I put it into practice and realized that…it worked. I was as shocked as anybody the first time I went to a bar, cold approached the hottest girl there, negged her brutally, and had her on her back within two hours. Are you kidding me?? Is it really this easy???

As I progressed in the Game, I began noticing cracks and inconsistencies. First of all, why were so many pickup artists shallow creeps with absolutely terrible personal style (understood in the broadest sense)? Where is the art? Where is the philosophy? Where is the ethics? Why does so much of the pickup literature focus on boring, shallow club sluts and sorority-style nobodies? I’m not interested in these women. Nor should any man with any self-respect be. I am interested in real encounters, not ego-tripping. That’s what it is to game some slut in a bar, no matter how hot she is: an ego trip. I once got a girl to fuck me in the bathroom twenty minutes after meeting her. She was sexy, too. It gave me a huge narcissistic rush (ALPHA MALE!) but ultimately left me feeling depressed and empty. Is Eros really nothing more than manipulation and conquest?

Eros is more than Game. The plasticity of women is amazing. Too many people on this website condemn what they should be celebrating. When you approach a woman with a Game frame, what you get is a response to Game. By wasting your time with the kind of women who are only interested in Game, you miss the opportunity to have a real encounter with a real person. Yes, Game has helped me facilitate this kind of encounter, but Game untempered with a properly ethical desire to connect on a real level with another human being is self-destructive. It transforms us men into ugly “alpha males” who are interested in nothing but our own idiotic pleasure. We become invisible to the rare outlier women who do not follow these rules. Worse, they become invisible to us. You get back what you put in. If what you put in is hustle, bluff, and manipulation, that is all you are going to get back. There is more to life than this.

I have been living in France for more than a decade. French women are amazing. I never miss American women. They are as corrupt as they are portrayed to be on this website. But that is not the whole story. The corruption of American women is largely a result of the corruption of American men. Crucially, Red Pill style alpha male conservative/libertarian bullshit is just as complicit in producing damaged women who oscillate between slut and prude as is permissive liberalism. Democrats produce soft-minded sluts, yes, but Republicans produce monstrosities like Sarah Palin, fundamentally a pervert’s sexual fantasy, even a gay man’s fantasy. We should reject both positions, but we should reject one more firmly than the other.

Game produces a positive feedback effect. The very practice of Game, the very epistemology of Game, produces women who are susceptible to Game…but secretly resent Game and will ultimately either tire of Game players or, what is even worse, continue validating your “alpha” frame until you both become monsters of narcissism. Similarly, the discourse of conservatism actively produces hysteria and vice versa. Here we return to the original post. Yes, leftists and women both occupy the position of the hysteric in relation to the Master (or, to speak like Lacan, the Master’s Discourse). Here CH is entirely correct and his observations are, as always, keen and insightful. BUT…and this is a big BUT…his mistake lies in biologizing something which is a pure product of discourse. Any society will spontaneously organize itself into figurative “men” and “women”. This separation generally follows biological lines, but is not entirely determined by them. There will always be hysterics, and we should be glad for it, for without women to break men’s balls, challenge them, fuck around on them, and generally ruin their obsessional fantasies of order and control, life would quickly become unbearable for everybody. Now, CH is correct to see that the pendulum is swinging too far in one direction. I agree that the excesses of the hysterical position as incarnated by SJW leftists and Jezebel-style cunts must be identified and condemned. CH, you do this as well as anybody out there. HOWEVER, it is a grave error to believe that the hysterical position itself can or should be liquidated. Many of the commenters here come across as cynics, if not outright knaves, because they fall into the trap of believing that we can do without women. Do we really want to live in that kind of world? Do we want women to be…men? Because that is what Game unleavened with an ethics and an epistemology of transcendental subjectivit transforms women into: men.

By conflating the domain of symbols with the domain of biology, we lose sight of the fact that women are, in their last essence, functions of language. They incarnate the vanishing point around which desire circulates. We must love their inconsistency, not condemn it; the best of Game and Red Pill recognizes this and thus could be considered a sort of true, enlightened feminism. CH, you walk the razor’s edge between these two positions. Sometimes you seem to represent this paradoxically “feminist” dimension of Game and sometimes you seem to be tempted by the regressive, anti-Semitic, white supremacist, biologizing perversion of the true message of Red Pill. You’re too talented a writer to be fooled by this fakery.

The true site of our alienation is discourse. The women whose excesses and weaknesses CH chronicles are nothing but canaries in a coal mine. The death of an enlightened femininity in the United States is first and foremost a consequence of the spread of a way of speaking, thinking, and interacting that is not designed to create rich human interactions but to facilitate the exchange and accumulation of capital. CH, you are a fearless chronicler of the phenomenology of this disaster; for that I thank you, but to understand its true causes, we must look deeper into the nature of subjectivity.

I saw the gratuitous ‘antisemitic’ but I kept reading. Who knows, sometimes you might read something interesting. Then I saw ‘Lacan’ but I kept reading, though no longer expecting payoff. Finally I saw ‘Sarah Palin’ and asked myself, what the fuck. What does the woman trigger in some people?

I don’t know. I like her a lot. Artfag wannabe intellectuals seem to be intimidated by her. I skimmed this nonsense and was reminded as to why I don’t take psychology seriously or any social sciences for that matter. It’s the domain of low brow intellects.